> On 2 Oct 2017, at 16:47, Federico Calboli <federico.calb...@kuleuven.be> > wrote: > .....
> As a referee I am trying to weed out what I see as malpractice: the promise > that third parties outside the developers might actually use the code because > it has been packaged as a R library, a claim that seems to boost publishing > chances. > > Thus my question: when can I consider a library to be properly published and > really publicly available? CRAN and BioConductor are clearly gold standards. > What about Github? I am currently using the rule ‘not on CRAN == outright > rejection’. If Github is as good as CRAN I will include it on my list of > ‘the code is available in a functional state as claimed’. > As others have suggested: I would insist that code is presented as valid R package which the maker has at least checked with R CMD check with no errors (preferably with the --as-cran option). In addition I would also insist that packages have been sent to the winbuilder and passed all checks without error or warning. Berend Hasselman ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
